First cause

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It is to this which I referred in one of my earlier posts to your charge of the impossibility to reasonably reconcile the supposed rifts between reality and statements from the Bible.

In particular, you are using several misguided definitions of key concepts. For one, you forget the ultimate truth of reality, i.e., the glorification of God. In its pla ...[text shortened]... wingly omit (thereby reject) aspects of the same and yet hope to remain within its confines.

It is to this which I referred in one of my earlier posts to your charge of the impossibility to reasonably reconcile the supposed rifts between reality and statements from the Bible.
It seems I'm not the only one having difficulty trying to reconcile a God that smites entire armies with good. (Did you go to the "Angry God" link I posted? This was written by a Christian I might add). There is no room for misinterpretation, either God smote a whole army or He didn't. If the former then your God is unjust, if the latter then the bible is false.

In particular, you are using several misguided definitions of key concepts. For one, you forget the ultimate truth of reality, i.e., the glorification of God. In its place, you insert morality as the highest good. Morality isn't even a distant second.
If the ultimate truth of reality is the glorification of God then where does God come into it? Is He subordinate to His glorification? If God is above morality, as you suggest, then He can commit any manner of horrendously immoral act (by human definition) without you raising an eyebrow. I'm sure that Holocaust survivors would be delighted to know that God is ok with a bit of genocide.

Next, you place death on an exaggerated scale of importance. Even in large scale multiplication, death isn't as bad as you make it; surely it is no more important than life!
Strange stance for a Christian... I suppose you're pro-choice? Death is not the issue here, murder is.

Lastly, you confer upon one person some of God's omniscience, but not all of God's omniscience.
GMF: if in a million years a distant descendant of mine commits an atrocity and murders an entire planet full of people that somehow *I* am not a good person?
By not conferring knowledge of the future to himself GMF renders the analogy false.

Originally posted by Green Paladin
There is no room for misinterpretation, either God smote a whole army or He didn't. If the former then your God is unjust, if the latter then the bible is false.

Actually there is a remarkable amount of room for interpretation - as with much of the Bible.
One critical point is the use of the terms 'unjust' or 'just'. It is quite a relative and flexible term, and very dependent on what you consider 'right' and 'wrong'. Basically the general Christian argument is that if God did it then it was 'right' and therefore 'just'. The flaw in their argument however is usually to then try and pass off his action as 'just' in the general sense of the word as understood by non-Christians - which simply doesn't stand up.

But even with God smiting whole armies or even wiping out the whole worlds population bar Noah and family, if the reason for doing so is just then the action is just, the only question is whether or not the reason for doing so is given in full, whether you interpreted that correctly etc etc.

As for death in the first place, it is not really so bad in a Christian viewpoint anyway - and therefore not really wrong for God to cause it. In fact, if God does not send you to hell, then it can be seen as a shortcut to heaven.

As the vast majority of people born die below the age of 5, there cant be anything that bad about it or we could quite easily hold that against God too, without resorting to stories from the Bible.

As for your 'then the Bible is false' bit, I suppose you meant 'the Bible contains at least one error.' I would guess that the vast majority of Christians would admit to that and an even greater number would admit to there being errors in particular translations or interpretations of those translations.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually there is a remarkable amount of room for interpretation - as with much of the Bible.
One critical point is the use of the terms 'unjust' or 'just'. It is quite a relative and flexible term, and very dependent on what you consider 'right' and 'wrong'. Basically the general Christian argument is that if God did it then it was 'right' and therefore ...[text shortened]... ense of the word as understood by non-Christians - which simply doesn't stand up.

The hermeneutical absence I was referring to was whether the "smiting" took place or not. I realise 'just' and 'unjust' are relative terms in the same way that codes of morality change over time. In saying that, though, genocide and murder have been historically frowned upon.

Originally posted by Green Paladin
It is to this which I referred in one of my earlier posts to your charge of the impossibility to reasonably reconcile the supposed rifts between reality and statements from the Bible.
It seems I'm not the only one having difficulty trying to reconcile a God that smites entire armies with good. (Did you go to the "Angry God" link I posted? This was ...[text shortened]... ]
By not conferring knowledge of the future to himself GMF renders the analogy false.[/b]

It seems I'm not the only one having difficulty trying to reconcile a God that smites entire armies with good.
You are correct: you are not the only one with such difficulty. In fact, although historically man had been able to get his mind around the realities of this and other historical realities, of late, the fields are littered with such as yourself.

Do you think the historical acceptance is because people in the past didn't read those troublesome passages, or was their acceptance informed out of ignorance?

(Did you go to the "Angry God" link I posted? This was written by a Christian I might add).
I glanced at the thread and quickly determined the issue dead. It has been discussed within these threads countless times and always with the same result. It is impossible to wake the one pretending to be asleep.

There is no room for misinterpretation, either God smote a whole army or He didn't.
This is not being denied.

If the former then your God is unjust...
Now there's a false conclusion based on faulty information if I ever saw one. Justify your claim.

... if the latter then the bible is false.
Decidedly not.

If the ultimate truth of reality is the glorification of God then where does God come into it?
No one works more tirelessly than Him.

If God is above morality, as you suggest, then He can commit any manner of horrendously immoral act (by human definition) without you raising an eyebrow.
This just goes to show you how wretchedly deficient your understanding of theology (or, for that matter, history) truly is.

Strange stance for a Christian... I suppose you're pro-choice?
You suppose correctly.

Death is not the issue here, murder is.
Again, ill-defined owing to lack of proper understanding.

Originally posted by Green Paladin
In saying that, though, genocide and murder have been historically frowned upon.

Not by Hitler or the Jews apparently. And murder is and always has been a question of point of view. Many societies have sanctioned what is essentially state-murder as being just.

Originally posted by twhitehead
In another thread it was suggested that God cannot lie.

But my stance remains, we do not know what the logical impossibilities are. For example, it would be logically impossible for God to always tell the truth and to also be capable of lying. There may be a logical reason why he cannot violate the laws of physics - which would quite severely hamper hi ...[text shortened]... e may be logical reasons why he cannot know the future, or why he cannot be independent of time.

I personally think that there may be logical reasons why he cannot know the future, or why he cannot be independent of time.----whitey-----

...and what are those reasons? You said on the other thread that your belief system does not rule out something existing independent of the universe. Are going back on that here? If something can be independent of the universe then surely it must be able to be independent of it's 4 dimensions , one of which is time.

I appreciate that you did say "may" but this just makes your position more slippery because you won't be specific or definite.

Maybe this is why you prefer to think of yourself as not having a belief system because that would tie you down to being consistent?

Me? I don't really think time exists in any substantial way , I just think the concept of time is a representation of the universe in men's minds. This idea is more consistent with the idea that time is a relative notion and therefore I see little problem in a being existing separate from it.

Originally posted by Green Paladin
Would you say its moral to have children if you know that one of your descendants will "murder an entire planet full of people?"

Sure, if I also know that another of my descendants will do something that will cause a trillion people to each experience an eternity of personal happiness, and that for that immense good to be possible, the previously mentioned large (but now comparably miniscule) harm must be permitted. And this is especially so if life in this world is an intentionally temporary preparation for the true existence that everyone enjoys after "death".

Originally posted by knightmeister
...and what are those reasons?

Basic time paradoxes for a start.

You said on the other thread that your belief system does not rule out something existing independent of the universe. Are going back on that here? If something can be independent of the universe then surely it must be able to be independent of it's 4 dimensions , one of which is time.
I have no problem with things being essentially fixed ie independent of time - such as logic. But the very nature of logic is that it is universal and constant. As such it cannot time travel or transfer information from the future to the past. In fact it cannot be changed by events in the universe and that cannot actually 'know' what has happened in the universe.

I appreciate that you did say "may" but this just makes your position more slippery because you won't be specific or definite.
I havent thought about it very much so yes, my 'position' if I can really be said to have one, is only half formed and very slippery. Why else would I say "there may be" and not "there is"?

Maybe this is why you prefer to think of yourself as not having a belief system because that would tie you down to being consistent?
I am not being inconsistent. That is all in your mind. You have convinced yourself that you know what my belief system is and that it rules out the existence of and eternally valid logic. I have denied that repeatedly and consistently.
My comments on 'belief system' are based on the fact that I do not really know how you define that. By my understanding of the phrase, I do not have one.

Me? I don't really think time exists in any substantial way , I just think the concept of time is a representation of the universe in men's minds. This idea is more consistent with the idea that time is a relative notion and therefore I see little problem in a being existing separate from it.
Are the three space dimensions equally "representations of the universe in men's minds."?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Basic time paradoxes for a start.

[b]You said on the other thread that your belief system does not rule out something existing independent of the universe. Are going back on that here? If something can be independent of the universe then surely it must be able to be independent of it's 4 dimensions , one of which is time.
I have no problem with t ...[text shortened]... e space dimensions equally "representations of the universe in men's minds."?[/b]

Are the three space dimensions equally "representations of the universe in men's minds."?---whitey----

Yes!

They correlate very neatly with reality but reality does not have dimensions anymore than it contains "miles" or "time". Reality is what it is. How we make sense of reality is how we make sense of it. 3/4 dimensions are a way of making sense of and talking about reality. It's what humans do.

Try looking out of the window and empty your mind of all concepts like time , beauty , dimensions , logic etc etc. and try to just "be" and see that reality is just reality. It is what it is and what we experience of it via our senses.

This is such a simple approach that it passes us by most of the time. I'm not surprised you find it hard (and I don't mean that sarcastically)

Originally posted by knightmeister
Yes!

They correlate very neatly with reality but reality does not have dimensions anymore than it contains "miles" or "time". Reality is what it is. How we make sense of reality is how we make sense of it. 3/4 dimensions are a way of making sense of and talking about reality. It's what humans do.

I am not talking about imaginary axis' in space. I am talking about physical reality. Am I in a different place in space than you? If so then a spacial dimension exists in reality. That is what dimension means. It means that one can specify the location of something with regards to it.

So, when you go all dreamy eyed, are we all one? Or do we remain distinct?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not talking about imaginary axis' in space. I am talking about physical reality. Am I in a different place in space than you? If so then a spacial dimension exists in reality. That is what dimension means. It means that one can specify the location of something with regards to it.

So, when you go all dreamy eyed, are we all one? Or do we remain distinct?

I agree that you are in a different part of the universe than me but I fail to see how your axis cannot be anything but imaginary or conceptual. Sure the concept of a dimension or axis corresponds neatly to reality but an axis can only be an imaginary thing . I have never seen an axis with my naked eye nor do I expect to see one.Just as I have never seen an isobar in the sky. They are imaginary.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I agree that you are in a different part of the universe than me but I fail to see how your axis cannot be anything but imaginary or conceptual. Sure the concept of a dimension or axis corresponds neatly to reality but an axis can only be an imaginary thing . I have never seen an axis with my naked eye nor do I expect to see one.Just as I have never seen an isobar in the sky. They are imaginary.

And that is where the confusion comes in. You cant seem to understand the concepts of abstraction. When I talk about a spacial dimension, I am not talking about an imaginary axis. You agree that there is distance between you and me, but for all your dreamy eyed oneness with the universe, you cant seem to get the concept that that distance between you and me exists just as much as you and me exist, yet that distance cannot itself be considered either a physical object nor a man made conceptual thing. So, it violates your categories and proves you wrong.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And that is where the confusion comes in. You cant seem to understand the concepts of abstraction. When I talk about a spacial dimension, I am not talking about an imaginary axis. You agree that there is distance between you and me, but for all your dreamy eyed oneness with the universe, you cant seem to get the concept that that distance between you and ...[text shortened]... al object nor a man made conceptual thing. So, it violates your categories and proves you wrong.

Rubbish. What exists between you and me is substantial and physical not imaginary. Between you and me are a huge number of atoms all configured in various ways and combined with energy. These are what separate us not "distance". Distance is a conceptual term we use to describe reality. Reality is reality.

Distance does not exist. The atoms that separate us do exist. Distance describes those atoms and thus it is not the thing it describes. Once again you cannot place distance (like time or dimensions) in the physical world as substantial . You also cannot give distance a catagory in which it belongs .

You say what it is not , like serigado, but not what it is. You refuse to place it in the obvious catagory of a concept and also refuse to say what distance is in the physical world or what it is made of. You also can't create a third catagory for it. So by default myu argument stands. It cannot be a physical , substantial entity, it cannot exist in the physical world (no-one has seen a "distance" - people HAVE seen atoms) so what else could it be? It HAS to be in the other catagory.

I'm surprised you can't see the logic of this. It's you that's being woolly here not me. Tell me what distence is NOT what it isn't

Originally posted by knightmeister
Rubbish. What exists between you and me is substantial and physical not imaginary. Between you and me are a huge number of atoms all configured in various ways and combined with energy. These are what separate us not "distance". Distance is a conceptual term we use to describe reality. Reality is reality.

Distance does not exist. The atoms that sepa ...[text shortened]... physical world as substantial . You also cannot give distance a catagory in which it belongs.

So, lets find out who is really talking rubbish.
Tell me honestly:
1. if there were no atoms between you and me, would we no longer be separated?
2. Are all atoms in existence between you and me, and what does between you and me mean anyway? How do you tell 'where' something is, if its location is just a figment of your imagination?
3. Is there matter between an atoms nucleus and its electrons? If not, are they not separated from each other?

You say what it is not , like serigado, but not what it is. You refuse to place it in the obvious catagory of a concept and also refuse to say what distance is in the physical world or what it is made of.
An obvious contradiction. I refuse to say what it is made of because it is by definition not made of anything. It is you that is at fault in insisting that everything must be made of something. I have categorized it, whether you like my categories or not is not important.


Now stop trying to run around in circles and admit that you are wrong and you know it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So, lets find out who is really talking rubbish.
Tell me honestly:
1. if there were no atoms between you and me, would we no longer be separated?
2. Are all atoms in existence between you and me, and what does between you and me mean anyway? How do you tell 'where' something is, if its location is just a figment of your imagination?
3. Is there matte ...[text shortened]... t.


Now stop trying to run around in circles and admit that you are wrong and you know it.

So distance is definitely not made of anything and has no substance that you can speak of in the natural physical world. That's something we agree on then.

How then do you manage to make distance out to be something more than a concept? A very accurate and constant concept but still a concept.